@borbo23 (from cont) Empowered with such force as independent armies, as a standing national army was known to be detrimental to freedom. Yes, standing armies are not Constitutional, literally the Constitution states if war becomes necessary and the militias of the states must form a continental army it must be disbanded within 2 years. As the result of the war, a Federal government established predominance over States, unquestionably, and thus over its citizens. Most unconstitutional.
@borbo23 How tired I am or the fact I made these entries on older software have nothing to do with substance or the fact you can not credibly refute the information.
@oculist2020 You haven't even made an argument that made sense, what you're saying is based on a partial understanding of history.
The concept that the Confederacy fought for states rights has been discredited so many times and ways, the only people who actually believe it are the most die-hard, brick-headed neo-confederates.
Just look at the actions of the Confederacy itself; it was far more restrictive of personal and state rights than the Union.
@borbo23 I'm certainly not defending slavery, it IS an evil institution, then and now. But surely you can not deny the war was over rights of personal property. Rights that go to the heart of Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness, indeed rights secured under a standing format in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. States where empowered by the Constitution to defend those rights, among others, against a centralized authority, the U.S. government. (cont)
It's awful, do any here cussin' States Rights even know what they where? States where the ultimate power under the U.S, Constitution. This was a comprimise. There had to be an authority to enforce individuals Liberty so Citizenship of a State was paramount to citizenship of the U.S., capitalization and lack there of is not a mistake here. The U.S. government, according to the Constitutiob, was necer intended to be all powerful and superior to the will of States, or the Citizens in them.
@DavePerry2012 Supposedly? As with another in this debate I will point out to you, Lincoln knew his spoken and written words would go down in history. Had he not believed them, or wanted history to believe them, he would not have said or written them.
borbo23 (from cont) Ans as for the spoken and written words of Lincoln meaning nothing, well the point is rather jeuvinile. You say the leaders of the South you site spoke the truth, while Lincoln was lying, friend, there is no shortage of understanding on which side of the debate revisionists abide. Lincoln was well aware that his spoken and written words where to go down in history, as well where the leaders of the South.
its the south's falt they broke away from there government i mean what did they think was gonna happen.. southern rights my ass i dont feel sorry for them they should have known better just being real
@lion40520 actually you are completley wrong... the south, at the beggining of the war had a legitimate chance of victory over the north; it was really a number of outstanding circumstances and strategic losses + lack of organization which caused ther defeat. What about the french revolution? Should the people have 'known better' than to stand up to the monarch, same thing can be said about russia. sorry to go off on a rant, but your not being real at all ;]
@lion40520 Perhaps you have disdain for George Washington and the men who stood with him as well, they also "broke away from their government". Perhaps you feel their victory was unjust on those terms. When the South did what it did the Revolutionary War was barely 80 years old, and the biggest point being missed by most modern historians and revisionists is it that victory was good then, but as with Washington and his men, only standing to be counted mattered, victory was a nice reward.
i should have known a one sided view on things P.S. 60,000 FREE AND SLAVE BLACK MEN SERVED IN THE CONFEDERACYS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL WAR I LOVE HOW THEY OVERLOOK THEIR OWN SIDES LEADERS JOURNAL ENTRIES ABOUT FIGHTING BLACK AND WHITE CONFEDERATES
these poor men, what a mess, so so many died needlessly,but a great part of history here, do the schools teach this to the kids today ????? if no they should instead of having their heads burried in the rotten modile phones all day, this would be good education of the finest.
Actions speak louder than words; Lincoln and Grant both had blacks in their cabinets, so any claims that they didn't think blacks were equal to whites is purely politicking, since (unlike the South who suppressed all political opposition) the North allowed the Copperhead traitors to exist.
Finally, if the Confederacy loved its blacks so much, then why, after the war, were so many blacks murdered by the KKK, formed from former Confederate officers? Doesn't sound much like love to me.
@borbo23 You will find many that express a love for liberty, and the importance of duty. Defense of their homes and families, and above all else, resistance to a corrupted government that they knew did not represent them. In their words, by their own hands they wrote their justification. Their justification for fighting, for being away from their duties at home, explaining that their cause was larger than their own lives. By no pen is recorded a love for the institution of slavery.
@borbo23 I almost hesitate to respond to your observation of the KKK. However, You seem to believe that all Confederates were of that ilk, nothing could be farther from the truth. And as in your country, people will always have prejudice against those different from themselves (would you be Catholic or Protestant, or athiest?). And you seem to be unfamiliar with the racist motivations of the North.
@borbo23 And finaly, one most important FACT sir. The Fourteenth and Fithteenth Amendments do not confir equal citizenship on black people or any other minority. They plainly state that citizenship equal rights for minorities is a priveledge, NOT A RIGHT. Priveledges may be revoked for any cause at any time, rights can not. So, there you have all the glory and righteousness of the North in the "war to end slavery". They fought and killed to legaly bind a people as priveledged and not righted.
You're just making things up now. Grant was given a slave whom he freed willingly in 1859. His wife's family owned some slaves and gave some to her, but legally he could not free her slaves.
Lincoln was a politician, and he sometimes said things that were contrary to his actions. He made the war about freeing the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. While this had some practical use, mostly it was clearly because Lincoln was anti-slavery.
@borbo23 By your own words, " he made the war about slavery with the E.P." This was purely political, without substance. The E.pP. was nothing more than a press release. It did not apply in the south because Lincoln had no authority there. It was written not to apply in border states ( states that would have been Confederate but for Union occupation at the begining of the war) were he did have authority. The North had already abolished the practice.
@borbo23 If the Union was intent on ending slavery, and this was the cause of the war, and not a revision, why was no substantive law passed before or during the war?
@borbo23 Slavery was not the cause of the war, merely the occasion of its erruption. You are not stupid, I realize that. Yes there were slave cartels, mostly northern buisnessmen trading in humans. Yes the South had a vested interest in it. No, you will not find one single letter written by a Confederate soldier expressing how he was killing and putting his life on the line to perpetuate slavery.
@borbo23 Yes, they were his wifes slaves, but in that day in this country, he as her husband had legal authority to order them or sell them or set them free. He continued to use them for the duration of the war. He did not set them free until 1865. No, I'm not making that up.
@oculist2020 -system that kept them in bondage! You claim that many states "would have been Confederate" but for the "occupation" by the Union. What about West Tennessee? It did not want to secede Confederacy, but was forced at gunpoint. They tried to do the same to Missouri, and West Virginia LEFT the Confederacy. Many people recognized that the only ones who stood to gain from the slave system were the rich slave-owners. That's why so many defected. It was not a popular cause by any stretch.
@borbo23 "All the South has ever desiredwas that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and the Government,as originaly organized, should be administered in purity and truth".
@oculist2020 Absolutely. Thank you for sharing this quote, which is a genuine, legitimate, intelligent response from one of the best men who have ever lived. How dare anyone mark it as spam, when it is actually the unvarnished truth.
@oculist2020 Also, you're failing to understand the idea that the war was caused by slavery, but that is not necessarily why the Union fought... at first. The south seceded because they felt their "peculiar institution" was in danger because an abolitionist had been elected president. With the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln turned the war into a crusade for the North to rid the states of slavery. Ultimately, he gave his life for it.
@borbo23 Also should you have a question about symantics, or the differences between rights and priveledges, there are very very many court cases you will find on the webb in which those differences are discussed at length. Both ARE legal terms and have very different meanings. So different, that an idea they were mistakenly transposed is ludacris.
@oculist2020 Where do I even begin here? You clearly do not even understand the Antebellum period, for one. Southern society emphasized personal honor, not duty.
The war was undoubtedly caused by slavery; the South seceded because Lincoln (a well-known abolitionist who had to work to make himself seem less radical, hence some of your quotes) was elected (democratically) as president. The southern slave owners did not believe in a representational government, they believed in what benefited them.
@oculist2020 And your point about Ireland is a poor one, but I'm not surprised. The Troubles are a result of the British occupation - and coincidentally, also a privileged class (the Loyalists) akin to the slave-owners who despise democracy and equality. In reality there are Catholics and Protestants both who want a free, independent Ireland.
@oculist2020 Finally, the most damning thing to your argument is simply that the idea that they were fighting for "states rights" (Which Jefferson Davis said were destructive to the Confederacy) was invented AFTER the war was over, by Jubal Early. He also deified Lee (who had really lost the war by engaging in a war of attrition against a stronger enemy).
Your bias just taints everything you say. You defend slave-owners who worked children to death and then say their slaves loved them and the-
@borbo23 "Your bias just taints everything you say. You defend slave-owners who worked children to death and then say their slaves loved them and the system that kept them in bondage!" On this point I must name you an absolute idiot. For all that read the remarks I have made, that would be everyone in the world, will realize that I in no way even suggested this. only an idiot would care to discredit themselves in this fassion.
@borbo23 "The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it had any other object, or that the government disguises using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolishonists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and soldier I would resign my commision and carry my sword to the other side".
@oculist2020 Excellent quote. I'm pleased that you found this and posted it, although it might be unpalatable to the self-righteous north. This quote expresses unequivocally the true feelings of Grant and indeed most of those who fought the war. Thank you.
@borbo231 I did not compare Ireland with the American Civil War. However you did bend what I had said so that you may insult me. Many of the posts you made last are unfounded in regards to anything I said. Should people need to learn how to debate, they need look no further than your latest remarks for an example of how not to. In a debate, credibility is paramount. Otherwise there can no debate.
The treatment of POWs were harsh. Especially Andersonville. To make it fair, I don't really think I should blame the Rebels because they barely had enough to feed their own men much less their prisoners. Well, the Northern camps exacted the same treatment on their prisoners just to make it fair. I don't blame anyone. I think it was plain stupid that the Confederates fought in the fist place. All they had was cotton, arrogance and slaves. They could've saved everyone all the trouble.
Slavery was the cause of the war. Specifically, whether the new states would be free or slave.
Every major period source says so; Jefferson Davis, his VP, Grant, Lincoln. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the idea of "states rights" was invented. Ironic when the Confederacy was far worse about states rights, and the slaveholders had no problem violating the rights of other states before the war (like with the Fugitive Slave Law).
@oculist2020 When almost every major period source during the war said the war was about slavery, then that tells you something. After the war, revisionists (notably Jubal Early) created the "lost cause" ideology to absolve themselves of the failure of the Confederacy.
This is just reality, and no amount of revisionism can actually change the facts.
@borbo23 You are correct, no amount of revision can change the facts.
"All the South has ever desiredwas that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and the Government,as originaly organized, should be administered in purity and truth".
@borbo23 "If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it... what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps the Union".
@oculist2020 First of all, you're taking many quotes out of context. Lincoln's famous quote you mention was followed by him saying how he thought all men should be free. It was a political quote. Lee, in some times, also called slavery evil, but then said it was a necessary evil because Africans were so "savage". "Great" man.
BTW, in his memoirs Grant states specifically that the war was due to slavery. Your quote is surely a political one aimed at pacifying the elements of the population that would support a war for preserving the union, but not for ending slavery.
Finally, the reason the South seceded (before Lincoln even took office!) was because they felt that the institution of slavery was in danger, and so they left.
It had nothing to do with state's rights, the Southern slaveowners had no qualms about violating other states rights with the Fugitive Slave Laws. They were even willing to subvert democracy if it was not entirely serving their interests! They seceded because the ELECTED president might not bend over backwards for them.
@borbo23 One more thought for you. Many Americans have become Southern rebels today. Only this time they are in New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Atlanta. Many are angry at the abuse of our Constitution, by the self same government that acted in contradiction to it over a hundred years ago. For us, as with the Conferates, there is no doubt that it (the Constitution) is being abused.
@borbo23 Well, I lied. These are the last remarks I have for you. No greater justification for the respect of equal rights for black people exists, than when black men stood in the ranks of the Confederacy and fought and died to preserve the Constitution as our forefathers wrote it out. They earned for black people that respect. All other angles, including yours, reduces black people in this country to victims and the recipients of charity.
@borbo23 You seem to have a love for the revised history. First of all, the U.S. General Grant you are saying oposed slavery, after the war (revision of his sworn word during the war), owned slaves at the begining, durring, and after the war until he was forced by the forteenth amendment to release them.
@borbo23 Secondly Abraham Lincoln said, "I will say, then, I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races". Pretty hard to deny his intent. Unless you are a hellbent revisionist.
@borbo23 I know you must be tired of me already, so let us leave these matters of our national hearts aside, and move to other fields, before I start telling you what the IRA and the potato famine were realy all about.
@borbo23 Lastly Mr. Revisionist, Lincolns aim was not to free the slaves. His aim was to preserve the country as a whole by defeating (according to his own words in letters he wrote during the war) what he saw as a Jesuit conspiracy, a manipulation of the South by Europeans that wanted to destroy the U.S.. Those are his thoughts, not necessarily mine. Lincolns letters are readily available on the webb you are communicating on
@oculist2020 Unless you can go back in a time machine and then somehow read Lincoln's mind, you will never know why Lincoln did what he did. He was among the shrewdest of the shrewd in politics. His letters mean little or nothing. Only his inner thoughts would reveal his true intentions. What's more, Grant supposedly told Kaiser Wilhelm that the Civil War was, first and foremost, a war to end slavery, and that it HAD TO BE FOUGHT AND WON on those terms, or it would be destined to happen again.
@borbo23 Rediculous, the South had no stake in what new States decided to do about slavery. The South was standing for itself, and not one of the Confederates in the trenches would have killed and or died to preserve an institution they had no stake in. Typical Confederates where farm workers from families that held no slaves. I would suggest you read some of the letters they wrote to their faqmiles to find their motivations. (cont)
@oculist2020 Actually, what new states decided to do about slavery was a primary issue of the era; slavery had to expand or die. This is an absolutely vital component of the era, and I am actually stunned that someone who tries to debate this topic wouldn't know that.
As for why they were fighting, most Confederate officers and nearly all their leaders were slave-owners; even those who didn't own slaves often hoped to one day own them, or still believed strongly in keeping other races --
Every single person of the era pretty much agreed that slavery was a part of the issue, and a vital component of what the Confederates fought for; this was stated by their leaders. "The foundation sits, its cornerstone rests, on the idea that the negro is not equal to the white man".
Also, before you go attacking other people for not understanding "states rights" I'd suggest you actually learn to spell. FFS there's even a spell-check on these comments!
@borbo23 The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it had any other object, or that the government disguises using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolishonists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and soldier I would resign my commision and carry my sword to the other side".
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant
There exists more than ample proof that leaders on both sides Knew the war was not about slavery.
I don't know for sure, I am sure they had many reasons. They maybe some didn't know that if the North won they would be free. Some were born and grew up in the South. It was their home land to some and they didn't want Northern invaders on it. I am not an expert on that, I only know that blacks did fight on both sides. There is a black confederate burried here in WI that died after being taken prisoner by the North. I kind of think that some of them had pride in their Southern heritage.
96% of the confederate army did not own slaves, slavery was a secondary cause. Just as the american revolution, the civil war was fought mainly becuase of "taxation withouth representation" Very nice video
Your first fact is somewhat true; most of the confederate army was consisted of "Poor Whites" that were too poor to own slaves. But Slavery wasnt a secondary cause, and taxation without representation was in no way related to the civil war due to the fact that any taxes or tarriffs had to be passed by congress. Slavery was the sole cause of the civil war after it became a moral issue. Also there was the issue of trying to preserve the union. You are wrong
To call slavery the main cause.....is just simply rediculous. If it was, then what a poor and unreasonable cause to fight a war. And preserving the union? Any states has the right away to secede. They joined the union voluntarily. If slavery was the cause then that just makes the North hypocrites. There were more slaveholders in the union army FACT. The Morril Tarrif passed by Lincoln and CONGRESS was the higest import tax in history forcing many southerners bankrupt.
other countries didnt need a war that cost 600,000 people to die to abolish slavery. 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Lincoln allowed and wanted West virigina to seccede while not beleiving it was right for the 11 southern states to secede, hypocrite. Also many southerners were abolisionist, PGT Beauregaurd to name one.
300,000 blacks supported the confederacy compared to 200,000 blacks for the union? Are you mad? Where are these facts from? Is this another flawed stat dealing with Black Confeds? 180,000 blacks fought for the union. 50,000 of them were from the North. There were Another 450,000 free blacks living up North at that time. NOT one supported the south. There were 4million slaves North and South. Even if half of them openly and ignorantly supported the south, there was still more for the union.
The CS Army certainly did not pay any slaves or freedmen to fight in their army. As a matter of fact, the thought itself of arming blacks revolted most of Confederate leadership. Maj. Gen. Patrick Cleburne flirted with the idea in 1864 when casualties were taking their toll on the CSA. By the time the government seriously considered black troops, the war was all but over.
can someone explain this to me?
MasterGamingUK 7 months ago
@borbo23 (from cont) Empowered with such force as independent armies, as a standing national army was known to be detrimental to freedom. Yes, standing armies are not Constitutional, literally the Constitution states if war becomes necessary and the militias of the states must form a continental army it must be disbanded within 2 years. As the result of the war, a Federal government established predominance over States, unquestionably, and thus over its citizens. Most unconstitutional.
oculist2020 8 months ago
@borbo23 How tired I am or the fact I made these entries on older software have nothing to do with substance or the fact you can not credibly refute the information.
oculist2020 9 months ago
@oculist2020 You haven't even made an argument that made sense, what you're saying is based on a partial understanding of history.
The concept that the Confederacy fought for states rights has been discredited so many times and ways, the only people who actually believe it are the most die-hard, brick-headed neo-confederates.
Just look at the actions of the Confederacy itself; it was far more restrictive of personal and state rights than the Union.
borbo23 9 months ago
@borbo23 I'm certainly not defending slavery, it IS an evil institution, then and now. But surely you can not deny the war was over rights of personal property. Rights that go to the heart of Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness, indeed rights secured under a standing format in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. States where empowered by the Constitution to defend those rights, among others, against a centralized authority, the U.S. government. (cont)
oculist2020 8 months ago
*Constitution
oculist2020 10 months ago
It's awful, do any here cussin' States Rights even know what they where? States where the ultimate power under the U.S, Constitution. This was a comprimise. There had to be an authority to enforce individuals Liberty so Citizenship of a State was paramount to citizenship of the U.S., capitalization and lack there of is not a mistake here. The U.S. government, according to the Constitutiob, was necer intended to be all powerful and superior to the will of States, or the Citizens in them.
oculist2020 10 months ago
@oculist2020 You know all those red squigglies under your words? Those aren't for decoration.
I might take you seriously if you could spell correctly.
borbo23 10 months ago
@borbo23 no excuses here, but try to be more relevant.
oculist2020 9 months ago
@DavePerry2012 Supposedly? As with another in this debate I will point out to you, Lincoln knew his spoken and written words would go down in history. Had he not believed them, or wanted history to believe them, he would not have said or written them.
oculist2020 10 months ago
borbo23 (from cont) Ans as for the spoken and written words of Lincoln meaning nothing, well the point is rather jeuvinile. You say the leaders of the South you site spoke the truth, while Lincoln was lying, friend, there is no shortage of understanding on which side of the debate revisionists abide. Lincoln was well aware that his spoken and written words where to go down in history, as well where the leaders of the South.
oculist2020 10 months ago
its the south's falt they broke away from there government i mean what did they think was gonna happen.. southern rights my ass i dont feel sorry for them they should have known better just being real
lion40520 1 year ago
@lion40520 actually you are completley wrong... the south, at the beggining of the war had a legitimate chance of victory over the north; it was really a number of outstanding circumstances and strategic losses + lack of organization which caused ther defeat. What about the french revolution? Should the people have 'known better' than to stand up to the monarch, same thing can be said about russia. sorry to go off on a rant, but your not being real at all ;]
EZBreezy187 11 months ago
@lion40520 Perhaps you have disdain for George Washington and the men who stood with him as well, they also "broke away from their government". Perhaps you feel their victory was unjust on those terms. When the South did what it did the Revolutionary War was barely 80 years old, and the biggest point being missed by most modern historians and revisionists is it that victory was good then, but as with Washington and his men, only standing to be counted mattered, victory was a nice reward.
oculist2020 10 months ago
On bothe sides Irish-, German-, Jewish- and British-Americans, but more blacks supported the South than the North.
Sellrain 1 year ago
i should have known a one sided view on things P.S. 60,000 FREE AND SLAVE BLACK MEN SERVED IN THE CONFEDERACYS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL WAR I LOVE HOW THEY OVERLOOK THEIR OWN SIDES LEADERS JOURNAL ENTRIES ABOUT FIGHTING BLACK AND WHITE CONFEDERATES
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
these poor men, what a mess, so so many died needlessly,but a great part of history here, do the schools teach this to the kids today ????? if no they should instead of having their heads burried in the rotten modile phones all day, this would be good education of the finest.
barnfresh60 1 year ago
Why did both sides find it difficult to find room for prisoners of war?
Claronium780 1 year ago
@Claronium780 why not?
BirgirZ 1 year ago
Thanks for putting this together. I had no idea how bad these POW camps were...RIP fine soldiers
paulreider 1 year ago
shame good stills, poor narration.
reidzappa 1 year ago
If this was student made, it's one of the best I've seen. Nice work.
Smedley60 1 year ago
which version of Tramp Tramp TrAmp is at the beginning of the video?
where can i find it?
BurningFiresofIce 1 year ago
Honor was on all sides, but the right side won.
Why?
All people are the same.
I am,
George Vreeland Hill
GeorgeVreelandHill 1 year ago
Actions speak louder than words; Lincoln and Grant both had blacks in their cabinets, so any claims that they didn't think blacks were equal to whites is purely politicking, since (unlike the South who suppressed all political opposition) the North allowed the Copperhead traitors to exist.
Finally, if the Confederacy loved its blacks so much, then why, after the war, were so many blacks murdered by the KKK, formed from former Confederate officers? Doesn't sound much like love to me.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 You will find many that express a love for liberty, and the importance of duty. Defense of their homes and families, and above all else, resistance to a corrupted government that they knew did not represent them. In their words, by their own hands they wrote their justification. Their justification for fighting, for being away from their duties at home, explaining that their cause was larger than their own lives. By no pen is recorded a love for the institution of slavery.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 I almost hesitate to respond to your observation of the KKK. However, You seem to believe that all Confederates were of that ilk, nothing could be farther from the truth. And as in your country, people will always have prejudice against those different from themselves (would you be Catholic or Protestant, or athiest?). And you seem to be unfamiliar with the racist motivations of the North.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 And finaly, one most important FACT sir. The Fourteenth and Fithteenth Amendments do not confir equal citizenship on black people or any other minority. They plainly state that citizenship equal rights for minorities is a priveledge, NOT A RIGHT. Priveledges may be revoked for any cause at any time, rights can not. So, there you have all the glory and righteousness of the North in the "war to end slavery". They fought and killed to legaly bind a people as priveledged and not righted.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 YES INDEED!!! Actions speak louder than words.
oculist2020 1 year ago
You're just making things up now. Grant was given a slave whom he freed willingly in 1859. His wife's family owned some slaves and gave some to her, but legally he could not free her slaves.
Lincoln was a politician, and he sometimes said things that were contrary to his actions. He made the war about freeing the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. While this had some practical use, mostly it was clearly because Lincoln was anti-slavery.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 By your own words, " he made the war about slavery with the E.P." This was purely political, without substance. The E.pP. was nothing more than a press release. It did not apply in the south because Lincoln had no authority there. It was written not to apply in border states ( states that would have been Confederate but for Union occupation at the begining of the war) were he did have authority. The North had already abolished the practice.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 If the Union was intent on ending slavery, and this was the cause of the war, and not a revision, why was no substantive law passed before or during the war?
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 Slavery was not the cause of the war, merely the occasion of its erruption. You are not stupid, I realize that. Yes there were slave cartels, mostly northern buisnessmen trading in humans. Yes the South had a vested interest in it. No, you will not find one single letter written by a Confederate soldier expressing how he was killing and putting his life on the line to perpetuate slavery.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 Yes, they were his wifes slaves, but in that day in this country, he as her husband had legal authority to order them or sell them or set them free. He continued to use them for the duration of the war. He did not set them free until 1865. No, I'm not making that up.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 -system that kept them in bondage! You claim that many states "would have been Confederate" but for the "occupation" by the Union. What about West Tennessee? It did not want to secede Confederacy, but was forced at gunpoint. They tried to do the same to Missouri, and West Virginia LEFT the Confederacy. Many people recognized that the only ones who stood to gain from the slave system were the rich slave-owners. That's why so many defected. It was not a popular cause by any stretch.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 "All the South has ever desiredwas that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and the Government,as originaly organized, should be administered in purity and truth".
Gen. Robert E. Lee
oculist2020 1 year ago 2
@oculist2020 Absolutely. Thank you for sharing this quote, which is a genuine, legitimate, intelligent response from one of the best men who have ever lived. How dare anyone mark it as spam, when it is actually the unvarnished truth.
GuinevereJuliet 1 year ago
@oculist2020 Also, you're failing to understand the idea that the war was caused by slavery, but that is not necessarily why the Union fought... at first. The south seceded because they felt their "peculiar institution" was in danger because an abolitionist had been elected president. With the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln turned the war into a crusade for the North to rid the states of slavery. Ultimately, he gave his life for it.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 Also should you have a question about symantics, or the differences between rights and priveledges, there are very very many court cases you will find on the webb in which those differences are discussed at length. Both ARE legal terms and have very different meanings. So different, that an idea they were mistakenly transposed is ludacris.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 Where do I even begin here? You clearly do not even understand the Antebellum period, for one. Southern society emphasized personal honor, not duty.
The war was undoubtedly caused by slavery; the South seceded because Lincoln (a well-known abolitionist who had to work to make himself seem less radical, hence some of your quotes) was elected (democratically) as president. The southern slave owners did not believe in a representational government, they believed in what benefited them.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 Do you not understand that duty is a part of honor?
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 And your point about Ireland is a poor one, but I'm not surprised. The Troubles are a result of the British occupation - and coincidentally, also a privileged class (the Loyalists) akin to the slave-owners who despise democracy and equality. In reality there are Catholics and Protestants both who want a free, independent Ireland.
borbo23 1 year ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 Finally, the most damning thing to your argument is simply that the idea that they were fighting for "states rights" (Which Jefferson Davis said were destructive to the Confederacy) was invented AFTER the war was over, by Jubal Early. He also deified Lee (who had really lost the war by engaging in a war of attrition against a stronger enemy).
Your bias just taints everything you say. You defend slave-owners who worked children to death and then say their slaves loved them and the-
borbo23 1 year ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 "Your bias just taints everything you say. You defend slave-owners who worked children to death and then say their slaves loved them and the system that kept them in bondage!" On this point I must name you an absolute idiot. For all that read the remarks I have made, that would be everyone in the world, will realize that I in no way even suggested this. only an idiot would care to discredit themselves in this fassion.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 "The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it had any other object, or that the government disguises using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolishonists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and soldier I would resign my commision and carry my sword to the other side".
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 Excellent quote. I'm pleased that you found this and posted it, although it might be unpalatable to the self-righteous north. This quote expresses unequivocally the true feelings of Grant and indeed most of those who fought the war. Thank you.
GuinevereJuliet 1 year ago
@borbo231 I did not compare Ireland with the American Civil War. However you did bend what I had said so that you may insult me. Many of the posts you made last are unfounded in regards to anything I said. Should people need to learn how to debate, they need look no further than your latest remarks for an example of how not to. In a debate, credibility is paramount. Otherwise there can no debate.
oculist2020 1 year ago
what the song that in the most of the video
lil5dog 1 year ago
Interesting watching this, not being from America, I never really learnt about it.
sjdsmith 1 year ago
The treatment of POWs were harsh. Especially Andersonville. To make it fair, I don't really think I should blame the Rebels because they barely had enough to feed their own men much less their prisoners. Well, the Northern camps exacted the same treatment on their prisoners just to make it fair. I don't blame anyone. I think it was plain stupid that the Confederates fought in the fist place. All they had was cotton, arrogance and slaves. They could've saved everyone all the trouble.
chesykin97 1 year ago
14th amendment happened after the war
sbc2k1 2 years ago
i know!!!
sanddocon 2 years ago
@sbc2k1 i know! it was after son
sanddocon 2 years ago
the male ego and economics were the cause of the civil war.
sirries1 2 years ago
I vote for south
bigfischer1995 2 years ago
Slavery was the cause of the war. Specifically, whether the new states would be free or slave.
Every major period source says so; Jefferson Davis, his VP, Grant, Lincoln. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the idea of "states rights" was invented. Ironic when the Confederacy was far worse about states rights, and the slaveholders had no problem violating the rights of other states before the war (like with the Fugitive Slave Law).
borbo23 2 years ago
@borbo23 I am reading your comments late, however, your remarks could not be further of the mark.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 *off
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 When almost every major period source during the war said the war was about slavery, then that tells you something. After the war, revisionists (notably Jubal Early) created the "lost cause" ideology to absolve themselves of the failure of the Confederacy.
This is just reality, and no amount of revisionism can actually change the facts.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 You are correct, no amount of revision can change the facts.
"All the South has ever desiredwas that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and the Government,as originaly organized, should be administered in purity and truth".
Gen. Robert E. Lee
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 "If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it... what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps the Union".
Abraham Lincoln
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 First of all, you're taking many quotes out of context. Lincoln's famous quote you mention was followed by him saying how he thought all men should be free. It was a political quote. Lee, in some times, also called slavery evil, but then said it was a necessary evil because Africans were so "savage". "Great" man.
borbo23 1 year ago
BTW, in his memoirs Grant states specifically that the war was due to slavery. Your quote is surely a political one aimed at pacifying the elements of the population that would support a war for preserving the union, but not for ending slavery.
borbo23 1 year ago
Finally, the reason the South seceded (before Lincoln even took office!) was because they felt that the institution of slavery was in danger, and so they left.
It had nothing to do with state's rights, the Southern slaveowners had no qualms about violating other states rights with the Fugitive Slave Laws. They were even willing to subvert democracy if it was not entirely serving their interests! They seceded because the ELECTED president might not bend over backwards for them.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 One more thought for you. Many Americans have become Southern rebels today. Only this time they are in New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Atlanta. Many are angry at the abuse of our Constitution, by the self same government that acted in contradiction to it over a hundred years ago. For us, as with the Conferates, there is no doubt that it (the Constitution) is being abused.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 Confederates
oculist2020 1 year ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 Well, I lied. These are the last remarks I have for you. No greater justification for the respect of equal rights for black people exists, than when black men stood in the ranks of the Confederacy and fought and died to preserve the Constitution as our forefathers wrote it out. They earned for black people that respect. All other angles, including yours, reduces black people in this country to victims and the recipients of charity.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 *in the context of black people of this society, as all humans dserve respect of their rights.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 You seem to have a love for the revised history. First of all, the U.S. General Grant you are saying oposed slavery, after the war (revision of his sworn word during the war), owned slaves at the begining, durring, and after the war until he was forced by the forteenth amendment to release them.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 *fourteenth
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 Secondly Abraham Lincoln said, "I will say, then, I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races". Pretty hard to deny his intent. Unless you are a hellbent revisionist.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 I know you must be tired of me already, so let us leave these matters of our national hearts aside, and move to other fields, before I start telling you what the IRA and the potato famine were realy all about.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 Lastly Mr. Revisionist, Lincolns aim was not to free the slaves. His aim was to preserve the country as a whole by defeating (according to his own words in letters he wrote during the war) what he saw as a Jesuit conspiracy, a manipulation of the South by Europeans that wanted to destroy the U.S.. Those are his thoughts, not necessarily mine. Lincolns letters are readily available on the webb you are communicating on
oculist2020 1 year ago
@oculist2020 Unless you can go back in a time machine and then somehow read Lincoln's mind, you will never know why Lincoln did what he did. He was among the shrewdest of the shrewd in politics. His letters mean little or nothing. Only his inner thoughts would reveal his true intentions. What's more, Grant supposedly told Kaiser Wilhelm that the Civil War was, first and foremost, a war to end slavery, and that it HAD TO BE FOUGHT AND WON on those terms, or it would be destined to happen again.
DavePerry2012 10 months ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 The winners of wars write and or revise history. Perhaps progression in Europe has left this knowledge by the wayside.
oculist2020 1 year ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 Rediculous, the South had no stake in what new States decided to do about slavery. The South was standing for itself, and not one of the Confederates in the trenches would have killed and or died to preserve an institution they had no stake in. Typical Confederates where farm workers from families that held no slaves. I would suggest you read some of the letters they wrote to their faqmiles to find their motivations. (cont)
oculist2020 10 months ago
@oculist2020 Actually, what new states decided to do about slavery was a primary issue of the era; slavery had to expand or die. This is an absolutely vital component of the era, and I am actually stunned that someone who tries to debate this topic wouldn't know that.
As for why they were fighting, most Confederate officers and nearly all their leaders were slave-owners; even those who didn't own slaves often hoped to one day own them, or still believed strongly in keeping other races --
borbo23 10 months ago
@oculist2020 - "in line".
Every single person of the era pretty much agreed that slavery was a part of the issue, and a vital component of what the Confederates fought for; this was stated by their leaders. "The foundation sits, its cornerstone rests, on the idea that the negro is not equal to the white man".
Also, before you go attacking other people for not understanding "states rights" I'd suggest you actually learn to spell. FFS there's even a spell-check on these comments!
borbo23 10 months ago
incoming troll
hockey366 2 years ago
Not only that, but statistics show that more blacks supported the South than the North.
Bigmoonproductions 2 years ago
@Bigmoonproductions Who were they asking, the slaves with whips brandished over them? LOL
borbo23 1 year ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
Comment removed
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23 The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it had any other object, or that the government disguises using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolishonists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and soldier I would resign my commision and carry my sword to the other side".
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant
There exists more than ample proof that leaders on both sides Knew the war was not about slavery.
oculist2020 1 year ago
@borbo23, what th hell u talking about?
Bigmoonproductions 1 year ago
@Bigmoonproductions You're going to have to be a little more specific, lol.
borbo23 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@borbo23 "Who were they asking, the slaves with whips brandished over them? LOL" what the hell do u mean by that.
Bigmoonproductions 1 year ago
Why would they fight for something they were going against??
Gikanks556 2 years ago
I don't know for sure, I am sure they had many reasons. They maybe some didn't know that if the North won they would be free. Some were born and grew up in the South. It was their home land to some and they didn't want Northern invaders on it. I am not an expert on that, I only know that blacks did fight on both sides. There is a black confederate burried here in WI that died after being taken prisoner by the North. I kind of think that some of them had pride in their Southern heritage.
farmgent 2 years ago
u r telling me that the south treated the black better the the North?????!!!!!!!! despite RACISM there
fuuzug777 2 years ago
@fuuzug777, The South infact did. Atleast they recieved much more rights thanin the North.
Bigmoonproductions 1 year ago
96% of the confederate army did not own slaves, slavery was a secondary cause. Just as the american revolution, the civil war was fought mainly becuase of "taxation withouth representation" Very nice video
Bigmoonproductions 2 years ago
@Bigmoon
Your first fact is somewhat true; most of the confederate army was consisted of "Poor Whites" that were too poor to own slaves. But Slavery wasnt a secondary cause, and taxation without representation was in no way related to the civil war due to the fact that any taxes or tarriffs had to be passed by congress. Slavery was the sole cause of the civil war after it became a moral issue. Also there was the issue of trying to preserve the union. You are wrong
watyouwant111 2 years ago
To call slavery the main cause.....is just simply rediculous. If it was, then what a poor and unreasonable cause to fight a war. And preserving the union? Any states has the right away to secede. They joined the union voluntarily. If slavery was the cause then that just makes the North hypocrites. There were more slaveholders in the union army FACT. The Morril Tarrif passed by Lincoln and CONGRESS was the higest import tax in history forcing many southerners bankrupt.
Bigmoonproductions 2 years ago
other countries didnt need a war that cost 600,000 people to die to abolish slavery. 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Lincoln allowed and wanted West virigina to seccede while not beleiving it was right for the 11 southern states to secede, hypocrite. Also many southerners were abolisionist, PGT Beauregaurd to name one.
Bigmoonproductions 2 years ago
300,000 blacks supported the confederacy compared to 200,000 blacks for the union? Are you mad? Where are these facts from? Is this another flawed stat dealing with Black Confeds? 180,000 blacks fought for the union. 50,000 of them were from the North. There were Another 450,000 free blacks living up North at that time. NOT one supported the south. There were 4million slaves North and South. Even if half of them openly and ignorantly supported the south, there was still more for the union.
chapdog82 2 years ago
The CS Army certainly did not pay any slaves or freedmen to fight in their army. As a matter of fact, the thought itself of arming blacks revolted most of Confederate leadership. Maj. Gen. Patrick Cleburne flirted with the idea in 1864 when casualties were taking their toll on the CSA. By the time the government seriously considered black troops, the war was all but over.
GoPhils13 2 years ago
Very well done!
KelQvt 2 years ago